Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Friday, August 14, 2015

what the....BERNIE SANDERS??

"We have a collapsing middle class. We have more wealth and income inequality today than we've had since the 1920s....And what big money can do is put an unbelievable amount of TV and radio ads out there to deflect attention from the real issues facing the American people."
`

-Bernie Sanders`

Bernie is gaining. His rallies are attracting larger and more enthusiastic crowds than any other candidate currently seeking the nomination of either party. People are responding; they're moved by the obvious sincerity and sheer chutzpa of this Brooklyn-born senator who represents the Green Mountain state. They're feeling "the Bern". Finally, a "main stream" politician is saying the things that need to be said - that are begging to be said. He is speaking the unthinkable. Worst of all (or "best of all" for my sinister purposes) Bernie Sanders is driving the Democratic Party establishment crazy. The guy is even packing them in in Louisiana....LOUISI-FREAKIN'-ANA!`

As if that weren't bad ("good") enough, polls among the voters of New Hampshire, a crucial primary state, show him leading Hillary Clinton decisively. This latest surge in Bernie's numbers got me to thinking that something smelled extraordinarily fishy earlier this week when a rally he was attending was interrupted by two women who stormed the podium, seizing the microphones and shouting that black lives matter. Of course they matter. Certainly they matter to Bernie Sanders, a man who was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement before these gals were born - at a time when Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl". On this point, as on so many others, his credentials are unimpeachable. Of all the candidates running at the moment (I've lost count of the number) why the hell would they pick on Bernie? The whole affair looked decidedly suspicious to me. I'll be interested to see if there's a pattern that develops in the foreseeable future. Gee, who could possibly have a motive for tarnishing his image among African Americans? That's all I'm saying on the subject - for the time being. We'll leave it at that.`

"BUT HE CAN'T POSSIBLY WIN!!!"`

The consensus of opinion, at least among professional Democrats, is that a somewhat gruff Jewish guy with an Al Smith-like, New York accent - whose suits are obviously purchased off the rack - cannot possibly win the White House.`

Oh, please.`

This was the same rationale that I heard eight years ago when an obscure, black politician from Chicago with the strange name "Barack Obama" had the audacity to announce his candidacy for the presidency. They said then that it would never happen. Even Bill Clinton, "the first black president" (as he was referred to pre-Obama) implied as much. When Barack was swamping Hillary silly in the 2008 primaries, Bill said it meant nothing, noting that even Jessie Jackson managed to pic up a state-or-two on Super Tuesday in 1988. Obama changed everything.`

"If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."The eventual Republican nominee will call Bernie a "radical". If he gets the nod by the Dems (still wishful thinking, I concede) that label will more-than-likely be the only true statement to come out of the GOP during the entire campaign of 2016. Bernie Sanders is a radical in the exact same way Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a radical. At a time in history where radical change in an insanely corrupt system is desperately needed, that's the type of person we need heading the executive branch of the government. What we don't need are Wall Street stooges like Hillary Clinton - or any Republican you care to mention.

This is many things. Rocket science it is not.Tom DeganGoshen, NY

SUGGESTED READING:Frank - The Voiceby James Kaplan

I've said before of Frank Sinatra that while I wouldn't give you two cents for the man, I just can't say enough about the artist. Since finishing this excellent biography of the Frankster this morning, my opinion has been revised somewhat. Sure, Frank could be a schmuck - and Kaplan doesn't attempt to hide his substantial flaw's - but he also digs deep into the man's psyche in an attempt to explore what made him into (first, the person, and secondly, the artist) he became. There is a deep connection between the two. This is the best non-fiction book I've read since A. Scott Berg's "Lindberg". I understand Frankie a little better this morning. I even like him! Go figure.Here's a link to order it:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_15?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=frank+the+voice+by+james+kaplan&sprefix=Frank+the+Voice%2Cstripbooks%2C4379

"Frank: The Voice" only covers the years 1915 to 1954, roughly half his life. I assume Volume Two is in the works; I certainly hope so.

121 Comments:

For the record, I support Sanders in his run to be the Democrat candidate for President. If Sanders is anything he is an honest man who tells you exactly what he believes in and what his solutions are. While I disagree with him on just about everything, I respect and honor his bold honesty in telling us what exactly he is IE: a socialist.I can think of no better way to gain a clear understanding of the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism, Socialism vs Capitalism, than a race between Sanders and Cruz/Walker/Rubio or Fiorina in Nov 2016. A "No Moderate" race if there ever was one for both parties.

I find it interesting that Tom and other liberals have in the recent past made fun of the GOP for having 16 candidates running for their Presidential nomination. Every day as more is found out about the lies and cover ups and over all mis-management by Hillary I wonder if they wish they had half as many candidates as does the GOP?

This is what Damon Linker said in "This Week".

"The Democrats desperately need more serious, viable candidates in the race, or at least poised to jump in at a moment's notice. (And it sure would be great if they were more appealing than Al Gore.) The point wouldn't be to catch up to her in a mad dash. The point would be to serve as a strong back-up for when the nearly inevitable happens.

This isn't paranoia, right-wing spin, or baseless panic. It's a sober assessment of the situation."

Also I find interesting that when confronted with examples of

If you criticize Obama, you are a racist.If you criticize Hillary, you are anti-women.

the response from Dave is to claim it's just more hate! So the truth is now hate in liberalspeak?

Mozart on the other hand, continues to live on the fringe's of reality.

I pray for former President Carter a complete recovery from his cancer. I think he stunk as a President, but hold no desire for him to suffer with cancer or for that matter any other illness.

On the subject of The Donald, I can't help but to reflect back to the Ross Perot run for office the last time a Clinton ran for President. The similarities between Perot and The Donald are amazing. It would not be a fools wager to say Perot helped Clinton win. If The Donald wins the GOP nomination or if he runs 3rd party because he wasn't treated nice/fair (his meaning of which I'd like to see), ether way he will lose and the DNC candidate will win.

"For the record, I support Sanders in his run to be the Democrat candidate for President. If Sanders is anything he is an honest man who tells you exactly what he believes in and what his solutions are. While I disagree with him on just about everything, I respect and honor his bold honesty in telling us what exactly he is IE: a socialist.I can think of no better way to gain a clear understanding of the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism, Socialism vs Capitalism, than a race between Sanders and Cruz/Walker/Rubio or Fiorina in Nov 2016. A "No Moderate" race if there ever was one for both parties."

As for Trump, he is a thin-skinned narcissist. We don't need another one of those to follow the current one we have in the White House. Luckily that will not happen, but like Chuck said, Trump could definitely be a Perot-like spoiler and put a honest socialist like Sanders into the oval office. As scary as that would be, I would still prefer him over the horribly corrupt and integrity-bereft Hillary as president. And shame upon all that would vote for Hillary and put partisanship over country. That is not a principled stand in any sense of the word. She belongs in prison.

Well, well. Chuckie got himself a Google tag. How nice of him to accuse me of hate...again.

We can always depend on classic far Right projection.

How can we believe, or trust, "conservatives" who attack my honest statements and project their hatred? "Confronted by examples" indeed. I have criticized Obama and Hillary. The reason I don't get called hateful is because I did so with facts and reason, not pure ideological hate.

Not one of our "conservatives" has denounced this Right Wing HATE. "I'll pray" doesn't cut it. Prayers from hateful hearts are meaningless.

Why can't liberals be so compassionate? They must be too busy "hating and envying the rich", while they help Carter with Habitat for Humanity and ridding the world of parasitic diseases. You know, cancers to the far Right.

Far Right wing ideology is a sickness that shrinks the heart and rots the soul.

There is a willful blindness and acceptance of this hate if we are to judge by the responses here. What "values" are represented by this wink and nod to such hate?

Now the simplistic "Liberalism and Conservatism, Socialism vs Capitalism" false choice is presented.

This is the black and white view of absolutists, not of reason and reality. Socialism and capitalism have BOTH been present in our country since the beginning.

Guess what? Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. Socialism is. De-regulated capitalism has crashed our economy twice, in the Republican Great Depression and the Bush Great Recession.

What is the Republican solution? Tax cuts for the rich and elimination of Constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce and providing for the general welfare.

All historically proven failures.

They will settle for nothing less than the destruction of our Constitutional system of a democratic republic, in favor of a corporatocracy of, by, and especially for the rich.

If you don't think this is happening now, go visit the Kochs and bow to them with your fellow servants of mammon.

No Dave, If you read what I posted you will see what I said was you accused a poster of hate because they asked questions. I see you are still in the business of putting words into the mouths of those who disagree with you.

Are you saying that Sanders Socialism vs the current crop of GOP candidates is too simple?

The truth is Dave that an election between Sanders and any of the four Republicans I listed would finally clear the air on what the voters want, Socialism or capitalism as our economic system. It has nothing to do with the Constitution

"I have criticized Obama and Hillary." YES, for their not being far enough left to suit your beliefs. Not because of their lies and policy failures. Even so that does not give you a pass from your comment of "blame the black guy". You see Dave, you make that statement when ever the policy's of Obama that you agree with are criticized. But you never say blame the black guy when you are critical of Obama. And I have criticized GWB, so what?

I do not believe that you are happy with the current group of democrat contenders, regardless of how you try to frame your answers or demean the GOP contenders.

As I said before I want Sanders to win his party's nomination! Do you?

Dave, you know that I do like you and that we see eye to eye on certain issues. That said, I am getting really tired of being tarred and feathered because of something somebody else said that claimed to be a conservative. The fact that I distanced myself from hateful things said about Carter and offered sincere prayers on his behalf is evidently not enough for you. Do I think wishing cancer on Carter is over the top and not something that a good Christian would do? You bet. I also think a lot of the hateful hyperbolic rhetoric that gets spewed by both the right and left is uncalled for and harmful to serious debate on issues. I believe I have said as much numerous times; I’ve even made such statements directly to you, Dave.

Further, your assertion that socialism is in the constitution is nothing more than revisionist history/civics as taught by progressives. It is utter nonsense. Changing the welfare clause into the “good and plenty” clause by unconstitutional idiots does not make it so.Let me be absolutely clear so that you do not group me with everyone else you despise (but don’t hate; leftists never “hate”, do they, Dave?)

I am for the enforcement, as per the original intent, of the United States Constitution. When it has been found to be in need of correction, it has been amended to do so. Those that are elected and swore an oath to support and defend it should be summarily removed from office, and imprisoned as necessary, when they fail to fulfill that oath. That includes President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Attorney General Holder, and about 90% of congress from both parties. Those on the SCOTUS that twist and pervert the meaning of the constitution in order to find “new” rights to abortion and the necessity of Americans buying health insurance simply because we are breathing, is also an anathema to the constitution, and should result in their impeachment and removal from the bench.

Frankly, I think we need to pass a law that requires every new bill brought before congress to specifically state where congress derives the right to draft such a bill. If the subject of the bill is not authorized by the constitution specifically, it should never be brought to the floor for debate. The sponsor of the bill should then be given a tutorial on the Constitution so that he/she does not continue to waste time on unconstitutional/extra-constitutional bills. Next, I don’t want the Koch brothers influencing elections any more than I want George Soros or Oprah doing so. I don’t think corporations or unions should be able to contribute to politicians as “persons” with free speech. I don’t think foreign states or nationals should be allowed to either.

I don’t want a theocracy in America. I fully support those of differing or no religions to live as they so choose. I wish only that I be allowed to do the same. I do want my first amendment right to my freedom of religion and the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF to be protected and not infringed by executive order or HHS mandate accordingly.

I think socialism, and its cousin communism, have been responsible for most of the poverty and the worst in human rights transgressions over the course of the last 125 years with millions of deaths directly to be blamed upon these ideologies. That said, I don’t think there is any place for it in America.

We should help those that CANNOT take care of themselves as a matter of decency in a civilized nation. We should not create a safety hammock for those that are capable of work, but choose not to do so because they can make more living off the taxpayers than they can working. We should also show our great loathing towards those politicians that would seek to expand the entitlement classes as a manner of cementing their own voting blocs.

I literally give weeks of my time and thousands of my dollars to charities and to help the least of my brothers and sisters every year. I will not allow you or anyone else to tell me how hateful or uncaring I am because I think it is each American’s responsibility to take care of our families and towns. We are not excused from helping others because “that is government’s responsibility”. Bovine excrement! The government is ONLY F@#&ing allowed to do those things which are specifically spelled out in the Constitution. ALL OTHER RIGHTS and duties are reserved to the states or to We The People. That includes taking care of our own.

When our God damned former Secretary of State can accept bribes from foreign nationals to her Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable State Department decisions and consequently not only NOT be imprisoned but rather championed as the leading Democrat candidate for President… well you tell me which party is the servant of mammon? Hillary also has the most donations from Wall Street of any candidate too. Those are the facts, sir.

Have progressive Republicans screwed things up too? Absolutely. George W. Bush is a prime example of what goes wrong when you embrace progressive spending policies. Senator Obama rightly criticized Bush as being irresponsible and even “unpatriotic” for running up our national debt to $9 trillion. He then turned around and acted like Bush on steroids by running our debt up to $19 trillion while giving much of our tax payer dollars for “shovel ready jobs” (that he later admitted did not exist) to contributors, cronies, and liberal special interests. There is your socialist servant of mammon.

Further, Michelle Obama would make a wonderful wife to one of the old Soviet Politburo secretaries. She can call everyone comrade as they freeze and starve in their hovels while she jets off on lavish vacations. If you want to point out hypocrisy, you need to look at your fellow political travelers first, Dave.

In the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it if you would call me on the carpet for what I say; not on what someone else that claims to be a conservative says.

I accused a hater of hate. Remember “cancer”? Amazing how that doesn’t elicit disapproval from fellow haters.

I still don’t know what Carter did that was worse than ignoring an imminent 9-11, starting two unfinished wars, and presiding over an economic collapse.

Educate us, please.

you accused a poster of hate because they asked questions.

Nice try. Lie again.

finally clear the air on what the voters want, Socialism or capitalism as our economic system.

Thanks again for showing us your either/or, narrow, black and white world view. If you think any president can dismantle the entrenched “trickle up” rigged system we allowed to be built, you have more than one problem with reason and reality.

And I have criticized GWB, so what? So where? Oh, you mean the “Bush was too liberal” criticism?

Well that rings a bell, doesn’t it?

If you want to limit the discussion to simplistic rhetoric, then I’ll offer this:

Constitutional Democratic Socialism is better for the vast majority of Americans than the corrupt global corporatism that is crushing democracy everywhere.

And for that I do blame Clintons, Bushes, and Obama. They ALL have supported corporate written trade agreements that enriches the few and off-shores good jobs.

It is the anti-democracy agenda I criticize, not conservatism. I wish to conserve a democratic constitutional republic. What do you want to conserve?

I know this is not what you wish to discuss. You will prefer to attack me and accuse me of hate or whatever your koolade tells you.

Your problem is you believe un-regulated global corporatism is healthy capitalism, therefore it is “conservatism”. It isn’t. It is neo-liberalism.

Now the discussion has gone beyond your simplistic world view,

You may resume calling me names and hateful.

At least our friend TP gets the fact that a corporation is not a person and should not have superior rights to “free speech” and representation.

Maybe you think he needs your lecture on ideological purity. We can’t allow open minds, can we?

"When our God damned former Secretary of State can accept bribes from foreign nationals to her Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable State Department decisions and consequently not only NOT be imprisoned but rather championed as the leading Democrat candidate for President… well you tell me which party is the servant of mammon? Hillary also has the most donations from Wall Street of any candidate too."

GREAT statement T. Paine.

Great question. "which party is the servant of mammon?"

I'm going to paraphrase a Limbaugh question/statement for review. I can hear the heads exploding now at the very mention of Limbaugh.

Liberals continue to state that the US has no business telling other countries how to run their nation. It's none of our business what goes on inside their borders.

Yet liberals support more govt rules and regulations being put into our lives within our borders, within our homes, churches, schools and businesses.

TP, We should help those that CANNOT take care of themselves as a matter of decency in a civilized nation. We should not create a safety hammock for those that are capable of work, but choose not to do so

I, and most liberals, totally agree with this, and I sincerely applaud your kindness. You are a good man.

Just let me make this clear: Only the far Right propaganda says liberals want loafers instead of workers. We are getting a bit weary of all that dishonest misrepresentation.

Fear not, I shall not group you with everyone else I despise. I have made distinctions several times. Wait a minute. Just who are you accusing me of despising? Have I said anything like what you did of the First Lady? Why is she a target of your….um.. You’ll have to explain. I won’t say hate. Do you think she is as evil and hateful as the “Cancer” woman?

Do I think wishing cancer on Carter is over the top and not something that a good Christian would do? You bet.

"Over the top" seems a very gentle way to refer to such open hatred. I’m calling it what it is. And she's Jewish, not that it should excuse her hate.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you see my point? I don’t think, or suggest, you personally accept that as anything but hate, so we’re cool there.

It is interesting how the left is often accused of not recognizing evil, but when I call it out, I don't get any agreement.

My road was a shovel ready job and it was repaved. Thanks to the stimulus for that job getting done People were paid and spent their money into our economy. Just as intended. Other real projects were done, but not one Republican will admit it now. If you want to believe it was all wasted, go ahead. Better than wasting trillions on wars of choice. A lot less death and destruction. That’s just my opinion.

"Original intent". That is a loaded phrase. The founders disagreed too, you know.

We can argue what “general welfare” means, but the fact remains John Adams thought it Constitutional to tax seamen for health care.

Supreme Courts have agreed Social Security and Medicare are also constitutional.

You’re free to disagree, but declaring the exclusive righteousness of your opinion can become unseemly.

We have strong opinions, but we tend to look silly when presenting them as absolute truth.

The first lady is arrogant and selfish. She is one of those that was "never proud of her country" until her husband was elected, and then she still tells us about how she is a "victim" of racism. She is absolutely privileged beyond 99.99% of Americans. I don't hate her though. I do loathe her sense of entitlement and her ridiculously playing the victim. She is a spoiled snot. If that makes me hateful for pointing that out, then I guess I'll have to find a way to live with that.

Okay, let me be even more clear. I do not condone wishing evil on anyone, including my political adversaries. Carter and every other person is not deserving of having cancer. I think it is wrong and foolish for my fellow conservatives to resort to those tactics. It typically only undermines their otherwise correct policy beliefs.

As for your road actually being shovel ready, well I am glad to hear that at least one project actually was! By Obama's own admission, there really weren't any others though.

As for John Adams, well he was not perfect either. I'll refer you to the Aliens and Sedition Acts as reference.

SCOTUS has made many terrible and unconstitutional decisions over our history, from Dred Scott to Citizens United to Roe v. Wade. None of those are keeping with the clear dictates of our Constitution.

That said, I do appreciate that we both have strong and often contrary opinions from each other. My apologies if I get a little out of hand accordingly. Out of all the lefties out there, you and John Myste are definitely my favorites because you at least can be objective at times and ultimately want what you think is truly best for our country. You too will make a strong ally when I am finally able to turn you from the dark side of the force, my friend. Cheers!

"This latest surge in Bernie's numbers got me to thinking that something smelled extraordinarily fishy earlier this week when a rally he was attending was interrupted by two women who stormed the podium, seizing the microphones and shouting that black lives matter."

Are you implying that old skank Hillary Clinton with no accomplishments and an unsecured email server with top secret email on it was behind this?

Be careful Tom you may end up like Vince Foster on a Goshen NY park bench!

Dave you dodged the only logical answer to my questions, which is increasing welfare benefits does not increase employment. That's an absolute.

I realize you have a problem with absolutes.Do you have any absolutes?

Maybe Davie you can tell me (not us, I unlike you, do not claim to speak for everybody)why corporations moved jobs off shore, AND are they still doing so?

Isn't it the truth that with the liberalization and non enforcement of our immigration laws under Obama that business are now hiring immigrates instead of taking jobs off shore? Or is that some crazy right wing talking point?

You know you really must come up with a new set of arguments to prove liberalism is the answer. You have been using the same ones for over two years now. But wait you DON"T prove liberalism is the answer, you simply attack capitalism and conservatives.

Chuck, it takes money to find a job. Gotta pay the rent, gotta eat, gotta have a place to shower and get dressed. Gotta have a phone. ALL these things cost money and if one is unemployed, where does that money come from? Jeez...

Tell us now how CORPORATE welfare increases employment because so far all the big corporations that take 1,000 times more tax money than social welfare are sending jobs overseas and stashing the money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.

And MAYBE you should get your info about the immigration issue from spomplace other than Fox, because I'm 54 years old and have NEVER met ONE PERSON who's lost a job to an "illegal immigrant" and I lived in Utah where the place is lousy with them.

Conservatism crashed the economy in 1929. Liberalism saved it. Conservatism killed the economy in the 80's. Clinton brought it back. Bush crashed the economy in 2008, Obama has it up and running again with NO HELP fron the conservatives, in fact they have worked hard to thwart efforts to help middle class people.

How many times was "middle class" mentioned in the GOP debates? ONE

How many times was "abortion" or "planned parenthood" mentioned? 122 (yes, someone counted)

So basicly your idea that liberalism doesn't work is not born out by history or the facts.

Do you know why we have no manufacturing jobs in the United States anymore? It is because unions have made the price of labor so damned expensive that corporations did indeed move their plants overseas. When legacy costs for building an American car are thousands of dollars for union benefits before the car is even started, that is a huge part of the problem. It is because our instant-gratification-mind set, especially with younger generations, refuse to work hard and pay their dues to move on up the company ladder. They want the big bucks right out of high school or college. Look at the $15/hr minimum wage nonsense that is already shutting down mom & pop restaurants in Seattle. Working in customer support or a call center is beneath too many people starting out in the work force unless they are paid $20/hr. So... companies farm out that work to people that will do the job for far less in India or the Philipines.

Mozart, I agree with you that corporate welfare is very insidious and also needs to stop. Keep in mind though, that any increases in taxes on corporations are not simply paid by the companies and left at that. Those costs are always passed on to the consumer with increased costs for their goods and services.

As for your recounting of revisionist history, let me set the record straight for you, sir. The “Forgotten Depression” in the early twentieth century was handled by President Harding by cutting government spending immensely and then giving across the board tax cuts. By doing so, he ushered in the “Roaring 20’s”. See my article on it. https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=408858764761620479#editor/target=post;postID=267762286074221339;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=postname

When the economy started weakening again, Hoover attempted to remedy it with progressive spending policies. FDR came along afterwards and only exacerbated the problem and thereby extended the Great Depression until WWII came along so there were finally enough jobs to put everyone back to work.

George W. Bush campaigned as a conservative, but governed domestically as a progressive. When the economy tanked due to 9/11, Bush reacted through progressive stimulus spending. Obama came along, and although he had criticized Bush, doubled down on spending and printing of money we do not have. And if you think having a double digit true unemployment rate, and a GDP to spending ratio that we do under this president is a “recovery”, then there is something seriously wrong with your Funk & Wagnells, sir.

By the way, it was Carter and his malaise policies that killed the economy in the late 70’s. It was in the 80’s under Reagan that we had the soaring economic growth. Clinton’s “third way” was hardly responsible for restoring us from the Carter years. Your sense of history, is very scary and shaky, Mr. Mozart.

Harry, great comments! Good food for thought for those that think Bernie's socialism is the answer. That said, I would still rather have him get the nomination over the corrupt and incompetent Hillary.

Do you know why we have no manufacturing jobs in the United States anymore? It is because unions have made the price of labor so damned expensive that corporations did indeed move their plants overseas.

So you agree corporations are pitting Americans against low wage Asians. And only unions are to blame? Even when the jobs off-shored were NOT union jobs? Thanks for telling us who to blame. It’s what the Right always does. And the cure is always the same. Tax cuts for corporations and the rich along with more deregulation of commerce. Never worked, never will.

This reasoning will be the foundation for neo-feudal serf wages across the globe.

The Golden rulers have won, those with the most gold rule. How is that good for America again? Please enlighten us.. How much lower do you want wages to be? How does off-shoring jobs help Americans?

No answers are expected. But we know who to blame, and that’s all that matters.

“Please, don’t tax the nice corporations, sir. They’ll be more merciful to us, I promise.”

I love the rationale for not taxing corporations. “But they’ll charge more”. Guess what. They do anyway. And where does that revenue come from to pay for corporate use of our public funded infrastructure? Why should they get off and let the rest of us pay for even MORE corporate welfare?

Keep suppressing wages and cutting taxes for the rich and watch your American Dream or American Exceptionalism, or whatever fantasy that you have, wither away. Happens every time. You can’t see it yet? How many “corporate persons” writing out laws will it take to wake you up to what is going on?

This reverence for the wealthy and letting them make the rules is not wise. There is no such thing as corporate citizenship or compassion. Let them run the show and reap the fetid fruits they offer.

FDR came along afterwards and only exacerbated the problem

Does this support your historic revision?

After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 after the Dems caved to GOP pressure. Roosevelt feared an unbalanced budget and cut spending for 1937. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “enemy to his class” and resumed programs and policies that put America back to work.

TP,Harry aka "Chuck Morre", Anonymous and many other names, is a Republican propagandist, if you haven't noticed by now.

We've seen this behavior out of him for years. He uses different names to spew different distractions, lies or hate.

"Harry" is distracting again. The Sanders quote wasn't his plan to ration hygiene products. It was an off-the-cuff, and actually off point, illustration of his main point that Harry wants to distract us away from.

The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty.

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts… When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Why, it certainly appears to suggest a conservative victory over democracy.

"Conservatism" more than anything else, serves this agenda of the economic elite.

From the King of Deflection Dave Dubya:"Harry" is distracting again. The Sanders quote wasn't his plan to ration hygiene products. It was an off-the-cuff, and actually off point, illustration of his main point that Harry wants to distract us away from.

Were the following also off-the-cuff actually off point remarks by Bernie?:

"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy," wrote Sanders. "A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused."

"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man -- as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously."

Tom Degan's Post #434: Random Observations:

1. Shakin' Akin

Despite the calls of his fellow Republican for him to cease his bid for Clair McCaskill's senate seat following his stupid "legitimate rape" remarks last Saturday morning, Missouri congressman Todd Akin insists on staying in the race. He doesn't give a damn about the party he professes devotion to. It's all about his ambition. If he brings them down in November, so be it. Hang in there, Todd!

As usual nothing but crickets and double standards from Tom and his leaning forward comrades on Bernie's hateful and degrading women's remarks. Its what good progressive koolaid drinkers do!

"Chuckie is in his demanding stage again. Name calling, accusations and lies are next.

See how he dodged us (who is us?) on how offshoring jobs is better for Americans?"

No Davy, I am not calling you names nor am I in a demanding stage. I simply ask a very simple question that anyone who wants to increase unemployment benefits should be able to answer, if in fact that want to reduce the numbers of the unemployed. How does increasing unemployment benefits decrease unemployment?

As for offshore jobs, if you re read my reply you will see I asked if jobs were still being sent off shore and what reaction I should expect from liberals about immigrants getting jobs formally held by citizens. I dodged nothing.

BTW Harry and I have different IP's so how do you come up with we are the same?

I can't answer your question Davy about the Koch's until you tell me what you believe their agenda to be.

RE FDR spending, do you recall the quotes made by FDR"S Secretary of the Treasury and his close friend, Henry Morgenthau Jr?

Here are some of Morgenthau's quotes that might be good to remember when praising FDR and blaming the GOP.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

“I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.”

“I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

The date: May 9, 1939. The setting: Morgenthau’s appearance in Washington before less influential Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. You can look it up.

"The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty." Great Bernie, have you read what happened in Settle after fast food workers wages went to $15 an hour. Economic theory is one thing, economic reality is another. What has happened in Settle is reality after economic theory was tried.

Notice how the mind of the far Right goes to Morgenthau's opinion and Chuckie's beliefs in response to facts that tell them they are wrong.

Morgenthau was wrong. He was an angry disgruntled conservative, bitterly "justifying" himself to other Republicans by smearing FDR.

WE know beliefs trump facts for the far Right, so here are the facts that tell us Morgenthau was wrong:

After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 after the Dems caved to GOP pressure. Roosevelt feared an unbalanced budget and cut spending for 1937. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “enemy to his class” and resumed programs and policies that put America back to work.

US intelligence was not “misled.” It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA’s European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

It makes them very angry when people see through their false beliefs and deceptions.

They will deny the facts when posted two inches away from their demands for evidence.

1. Davy you are wrong when you say Morganthau was "an angry disgruntled conservative, bitterly "justifying" himself to other Republicans by smearing FDR." Not that I expect you to acknowledge your error, but the quotes by Morganthau were made to a group of Democrats, not Republicans.

2. Why proof do you offer to support your claim that Morganthau was a conservative?

3. Your bringing up GWB in response to the quoting of Morganthau is to accomplish what??

4. I read your "facts" ("refused to read the facts proving Morganthau wrong") I refuse to believe they prove Morganthau was wrong.

7. In response to a financial crisis, President Herbert Hoover raised taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals and instituted protectionist tariffs, thereby escalating the crisis into a depression.(sounds like the liberal thing to do)

8. From 1920 to 1921, the estimated gross national product plunged 24% from $91.5 billion to $69.6 billion. During that same period, the number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million or roughly 12% of the workforce. Home and farm foreclosures and bank failures spiraled, and calls for federal relief came from every corner of America.

9. The not so great depression of 1920 & 1920 was not so great because of Pres. Harding. "To fight the recession, he called on Congress to dramatically reduce both taxes and spending. Under Harding, federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and to $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes were also reduced from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and to $4 billion in 1922 with budget surpluses each year used to reduce the federal debt.

The results were astounding. By 1922, GNP had recovered to $74.6 billion and unemployment fell by nearly 50% to 2.8 million (6.7%). By 1926 with Harding’s Vice President, Calvin Coolidge, in the White House, unemployment had fallen even further to 1.8% (the LOWEST rate ever recorded in peacetime)." Who says cutting taxes and reduce federal govt spending doesn't improve our economy?

10. The avg unemployment for the whole of 1939 was HIGHER than in 1931, the year before the FDR presidency started.

Morgenthau was correct when he said "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

I am an old Geezer and I appreciate Tom's rants. I usually ignore the reader comments because they are almost the same no matter what is the subject of Tom's rants. I did read the comments on this rant because I support Bernie Sanders.

What spurs me to try to comment is the misguided objections to raising the national minimum wage. I started working in November 1947 for the then-minimum wage of 40 cents an hour, which had been the minimum wage since October 1945. In January 1950 the national minimum wage was raised to (hold on to your hats) 75 cents an hour. For those who are challenged by fractions, that was an increase of 87.5%. In September 1951 I enrolled in college (Northeastern University in Boston), and had saved enough to pay for the entire first year.

all the students went on the co-op work/study plan with two students for every job and taking five years to graduate. I had another pleasant surprise in March 1956 when the minimum wage was raised from 75 cents to $1.00 an hour, a 33.3% increase. Those co-op jobs and other part-time jobs, were almost all at minimum wage but I was able to pay for the full costs of my education, graduating in 1956 with Honors, a BS degree, $600 in the bank, and a wife who also graduated from NU in 1956.

I believe a national minimum hourly wage of $15 is a great idea. Doing it piecemeal doesn't work. The $15 amount will bring huge numbers of people out of poverty. And guess what those people are - customers.

What do you feel a $15 per hr mim wage do to wage negotiations under labor contracts?

What are your thoughts about a contract that calls for a starting wage on $14 per hour what would happen?Or if the difference between the mim wage and the starting wage under a labor contractis now $10, and at $15 an hour the difference becomes $5 per hour, what do you see happening to the future starting wage under a contract?

I’m glad Chuckie took a glance at the numbers, despite his misreading them and adding his “fuzzy math”.

He omitted Harding’s Emergency Tariff of 1921 and further increased tariffs to generate revenue. This was a tax increase, proving simply cutting taxes and spending isn’t enough government intervention.

He was speaking to members of the Ways and Means Committee. He was disgruntled about FDR not agreeing with his tax reform ideas.

“And an enormous debt to boot” was not from Morgenthau, but added by NC Representative Robert Doughton, who is also known for introducing the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. As we know, southern Democrats were more conservative back then.

So, to Chuckie’s surprise I admit my error. And to Chuckie’s disdain, I continue to pursue the truth.

But Morganthau was also wrong. …” I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.”

Remember these remarks are from a recently frustrated person, so we can allow for his being a bit distraught.

“When we started” was 1933. Unemployment was 24.9%. Unemployment at the time of his statement was 17.2%.

In no world, except in the Radical Right Bubble Cult, is 17.2% “just as much” as 24.9%.

Thus Morganthou was wrong. And Chuckie is wrong. But we don’t expect him to EVER acknowledge his errors. That would take the rest of his life. ;-)

I read your "facts". I refuse to believe they prove Morgenthau was wrong.

Thus proving my point that Chuckie’s beliefs trump facts.

Unemployment was never as high under FDR as it was the year of, AND before, he took office.

By 1940 it was TEN points lower than Hoover’s last number. Only in Republican heads is that not an improvement.

Point 6. 1937- 14.3% FDR caves to GOP on taxes and cuts spending and the unemployment rate DROPPED 2.7%.

At the same time? This is illogical and non-sequential. In 1937 Morgenthau successfully convinced Roosevelt to finally focus on balancing the budget through major spending cuts. The effect of policies enacted in 1937 would be AFTER the measures, not simultaneously.

Poiint 10. The avg unemployment for the whole of 1939 was HIGHER than in 1931, the year before the FDR presidency started.

Wrong, 1931 was TWO years before FDR took office in 1933, The number that matters is what Republican Hoover left when FDR took office. That number is 24.9%

24.9% is considerably higher than the 17.2% around the time of Morgenthau’s statement. This means his statement was incorrect.

If Chuckie really wants to agree with Morgenthau, then we should show him another quote from the same source:

"We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

You know what Davy, You really dont like it when you are proven wrong. So much so you spin the facts and belittle those who provide you facts you dont like or disagree with.If I give you a source you claim it doesn't count because it isn't from a liberal. If I dont give you a source, you demand I provide you one.

The last post of you again proves this out.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I know that Keynesian economics do not work.I know that that the Great Depression went longer here that else where in the world because of the policy's of FDR.(In 1933, Roosevelt became President and appointed Morgenthau governor of the Federal Farm Board. Morgenthau was nonetheless involved in monetary decisions. Roosevelt adopted the idea of raising the price of gold to inflate the currency and reverse the debilitating deflation of prices. The idea came from Professor George Warren of Cornell University. When Roosevelt told Morgenthau he was thinking of raising the price of gold by 21 cents, his entourage asked him why. "It's a lucky number", Roosevelt said. "Because it's three times seven." As Morgenthau later wrote, "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.")

I know that Morgaenthau was not a republican or a conservative."Roosevelt appointed Morgenthau Secretary of the Treasury (an act that enraged conservatives)."

I know that Democrats can not answer Chris Mathews question "how are Democrats different than socialists?"

I know that GWB will be blamed for the next plague of locusts.

I know that abortion kills a human.

I know that there are absolutes.

I know that what ever I say no matter how well I support it, Davy and Mozart will with out proof dispute it or claim that I'm an example of the right wing bubble cult.

I look forward to reading Mr. Baldwins reply to my questions, as I believe he will give an honest non demeaning reply.

But I will continue to ask questions that an honest liberal like Sanders would answer. Unlike many of the dishonest liberals who post here who become enraged that their positions or talking points have been questioned.

Dave, yes unemployment went down SOME during FDR's tenure. It damn well should have, considering the enormous amount of tax payer money spent on these federal jobs programs. I suppose the government could pay every single American to have a "government funded job" just like they did in the no-longer-existing Soviet Union too. FDR was trying to take care of the symptoms of the Depression such as unemployment instead of just addressing the problem directly.

The fact of the matter is that Hoover precipitated the problem by progressive spending policies. If he would have followed Harding's example, the Great Depression probably would not have been very great at all. Instead Hoover exacerbated the issues. FDR came along and took out all the stops with government largess. It wasn't until WWII came along that put private industry into full gear that enough jobs were available to pull us out of the depression.

As for you George W. Bush and the Gulf War diatribe, I have listened to this for years now... literally. I haven't really bothered giving a full detailed rebuttal of your arguments, but I guess it is now overdue. As time permits this week, I will write a post on my own blog dedicated especially to you, my friend, so that we can dispel the leftist talking points with facts on the matter. And yes... I am pissed that I am having to defend Bush on this. But the truth demands it.

TP,The truth demands it. I can't wait to see how much truth came from Bush and Cheney.

Nice to see you accept the reality of unemployment decreasing under FDR, and won’t fall into Chuckie’s fuzzy math and rejection of facts.

As we should have learned twice by now, recovery takes longer than crashes. The Right seems to always be annoyed by how long it takes to recover from their deregulation and speculation disasters.

I’m looking forward to seeing how much your revisionist history, as imagined from the Right, deviates from UShistory.org.

The stock market crash of 1929 touched off a chain of events that plunged the United States into its longest, deepest economic crisis of its history.First, American firms earned record profits during the 1920s and reinvested much of these funds into expansion. By 1929, companies had expanded to the bubble point. Workers could no longer continue to fuel further expansion, so a slowdown was inevitable. While corporate profits, skyrocketed, wages increased incrementally, which widened the distribution of wealth.The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets. Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth. The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes. Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system. Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough. Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks. Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery.

Before you start, let’s establish that Hoover’s “progressive spending” was reversed and, then what happened? It was action to balance the budget in 1937 that increased unemployment in 1938.

I’m impressed to see you take up the challenge to defend the indefensible Bush/Cheney. I anticipate a spirited rebuttal to British intelligence that said “ the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

I’m also looking forward to seeing how much your revisionist history as imagined from the Right deviates from reality concerning the Bush/Cheney deceptions and disaster in Iraq.

I hope you address the fact 70% of Americans bought into the myth that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and was involved in 9-11. I look forward to an explanation on why they would they believe such falsehoods.

Davy,I do not believe you nor do I agree with you. FDR was not the savior you believe he was, he extended our depression longer than anywhere else on earth with his policy's.Besmirch me all you want, ridicule me all you want, that is your method of debating me.But that doesn't change anything except expose you for what you really are.

Again with the GWB/Chaney thing. How boring, how typical, how irrelevant to the topic.

T. Paine"It wasn't until WWII came along that put private industry into full gear that enough jobs were available to pull us out of the depression."Yes, WWII, when Private Investors of the Free Market stepped in and bought all those guns and planes and shells and ships...

I knew when I returned to Tom's blog that it wouldn't be long until you started your personal attacks on me, the belittling of me and your name calling again.

You haven't disappointed. It is all you have got Davy.

Modusperandi, what did you want to fight the Nazis with flowers, boycotts, peace marches and hunger strikes? The USSR a socialist communist country seemed pretty happy to get all those guns and planes and ships and shell's from the free market, private industry as they couldn't make enough under their economic system.

"In Southwest Colorado this month, the Environmental Protection Agency caused a massive spill of toxic sludge into Rocky Mountain rivers and streams. Last year, the Veterans Administration was found to be systematically manipulating data, denying thousand of veterans health care access. Last week it was revealed that a technology glitch denied coverage to another 35,000 combat veterans. As engineers like to observe, one point makes for data, two makes a trend.

When government agencies undertake activity that results in consequences that are the opposite of their stated mission, something has gone awry. Apologists for the Obama administration are quick to dismiss these catastrophes as isolated incidents beyond the control of Cabinet leadership. In fact, they are the direct result of government grown too big, too cumbersome, and too arrogant to operate effectively.

In Colorado, the EPA literally went looking for work. Digging into an abandoned mine (there are literally thousands across the Rockies), workers breached a containment area, spilling three million gallons of tainted sludge into the Animas and St. Juan river systems. As local leaders scrambled to assess damage, a plume of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals flowed through New Mexico and Utah straight toward the Lake Powell reservoir.

This was no accident, just as the systemic failure at the Veterans Administration was no accident. They are the inevitable result of leadership that puts faith in bureaucracy, and bureaucracy that believes that good intentions and lots of regulations make common sense and efficiency unnecessary."

Great job EPA, you people really know how to spend The Peoples money wisely. We would be in such dire straits without your expert knowledge and help! This is almost as great as the stimulus bill where every million dollars spent created 1.5 jobs!

When businesses go down the wrong path — when they hire the wrong leaders, design the wrong product, or create a cost structure that is too high — they go out of business. But when government agencies do the same thing, there are rarely repercussions. The bureaucracies grow larger, leaders hire underlings who happily carry out every ill conceived decision, and the money continues to flow.

Following the mine disaster, the bureaucratic arrogance was palpable. For 24 hours, the EPA failed to notify local officials, who only learned of the spill when the river began to turn a disturbing mustard yellow. Then the EPA lied about the spill rate, claiming the flow was only a fraction of the actual 750-gallon-per-minute toxic deluge. Even states’ attorneys general were kept in the dark.

This cold indifference to those they serve reflects the command-and-control mentality of the Obama administration and conveys a deep distrust of business, markets, and capitalism. Ignoring this systemic failure, and consumed by a sense of self-righteousness, Obama’s bureaucrats reach ever deeper into the economy, pursuing expensive and unnecessary regulation of the internet, carbon emissions, and even car loans – the latter comes despite an explicit prohibition of proposed rules written into the law.

At EPA as elsewhere, arrogant leadership and incompetent bureaucracy are a dangerous combination. Today, America’s coal plants have never been cleaner, our nuclear plants have never been safer, and the evolution of fracking (a 40-year-old technology) has driven down energy costs to their lowest levels in decades. Blind to this reality, and searching for reasons to push for more funding, the EPA went looking for trouble and found it. It will take new leadership — and a long time — to clean up the mess they’ve left behind.

"Chuckie uses "Savior" quite often in his attacks on Democrats and their voters."

That is a bold face lie Davy, and only reinforces my not believing a word you say.

The rest of your post is typical Davy, no surprise there, nothing new, nothing of any value.

Now in an attempt to return to the subject of Tom's posting I will ignore Davy's distraction deflection method of debate, I think Sanders is no longer the "wild card" in the race for the nomination of the DNC.

Like Trump, it will be interesting to see if either party's leaderships will get out of the way and allow the process to unfold as it should without their interference. I do not believe the leaders of either party want to see Sanders or Trump at the top of their ticket. The problem for the DNC, as I see it, is they are not sure they want Clinton at the top and there isn't, right now, anyone close to either Sanders or Clinton running.

I do not believe Trump has the ability to be President as it relates to having to accept no and to compromise. He hasn't had to in the past. For him it's winner take all, in that way he is very much like Obama. (IE we won you lost, get over it) The good news for the GOP is they have by my count 10 people in the running right now, if Trump falters. Regardless of your party affiliation, the GOP has a stronger bench for their voters to select from than the DNC.

Bernie on the other hand, I feel, represents what a large % of Democrats believe. The interesting thing is knowing this and seeing how damaged Clinton is and continues to be, why don't they back Sanders, or at least get out of his way? As I've said before, I disagree with most of Sanders positions, but I respect his honesty. Kind of like the way I respect Joan Baez for her constancy of being anti-war and protesting both the Vietnam war and the N. Vietnam invasion of Cambodia. Unlike Jane Fonda who was mute on the invasion of Cambodia while being anti-war on our war in Vietnam.

What would happen to the DNC IF Sanders where to go into their convention with a clear lead in the polls and tied or close to Clinton in delegate votes? If the party leadership decided to stop Sanders, what would be their explanation?

Finally, Trump and Sanders I feel if elected in 2016 would have an almost zero chance of passing their legislation regardless of which party controlled Congress.

Chuck, I fully agree with your last comment. I would much prefer to see a debate between Sanders and any of the GOP hopefuls, Trump notwithstanding. I would love to see this to be an election based on ideas. Sanders is a self-avowed socialist, and that is NOT what this country needs if it is to have any chance to recover. I do think he is honest and sincere in his beliefs though, and I can respect that, even though I vehemently disagree with those beliefs. That said, we do not need a thoroughly corrupt Hillary in office. She belongs in prison... not in the oval office.

As for Trump, his negatives are so high, he will not long remain in the top spot. I think there are a lot of other decent GOP candidates in the race that have split the remaining support right now. As the field gets trimmed down, that support will coalesce behind a real candidate besides Trump.

Trump has flipped on so many core issues. And he has done so recently. He is an arrogant opportunist that cares only about himself. He is thin-skinned and refuses to play with others if he doesn't get what he wants. In other words, he is a paler version of Obama with bad hair. We don't need another arrogant would-be unconstitutional dictator as president.

TP, Is Obama a dictator because he issued executive orders? Yet your Republicans granted him "fast track" authority to push corporate written laws of the land. Why would Republicans want to give more power to a dictator?

In my mind the nightmare election in '16 would be Trump V Sanders. From my point of view, America looses if either one wins.

Just a heads up, don't be surprised if it is claimed I am Vanessa. It seems that it is impossible for some progressive to comprehend there are more than you and posting conservative positions here. Therefore it must be ole "Chuckie" doing the posting, not other conservatives because there couldn't be more than 1 conservative.

You know that really limits those who think that way to an understanding of the variety of Conservative thought and positions available to them to compare against their views. It is like the belief that all Black Americans are liberal and vote democratic. Or the use of the word "Savior" once is "quite often" and by using, is an attack. Or the use of the Imperial "we". Must be some kind of inferiority or victim complex.

Oddly enough I agree with Trump on several issues such as not destroying PP, not ripping up the Iran deal or Obama Care. One issue I strongly disagree with Trump on is Heidi Klum, she is absolutely a 10 and no one here will convince me other wise.

Dave, Obama is a dictator because he has issued more executive orders than any president in history that are un-constitutional or extra-constitutional in nature. Further, those fools in congress are NOT "my Republicans". I am NOT a Republican. I am a member of the Constitution Party. The fact that congress gave fast track trade authority to him just proves that 95% of them need to be removed from office as well.

And yes, I am aware of that Bush issued executive orders as well.

As for wars of aggression, I am afraid I have no idea of what you are speaking. Sounds like a DNC talking point to me, my friend.

Chuck, I totally agree. A Trump vs. Sanders general election is a dangerous loss for the entire country. I am hoping that Trump eventually implodes and doesn't play the roll of Perot by going third party.

I appreciate your reasoned points of view, Chuck, even if they do make our mutual friend Dave crazy. Sorry Dave, I could end up always agreeing with you, but then we would both always be wrong. :)

James, PP is an evil organization. No tax payer dollars should ever go there again...ever! The Iran deal is dangerous and foolish. It is placing politics above national security. Finally, Trump is a fool. Heidi Klum is absolutely beautiful!

Dave, I have indeed used the word "savior" as applied to Obama. When Chris Matthews and all of the progressives "get a thrill up their leg" in the presence of their messiah, it seems appropriate to use the misbegotten term as it relates for them to their lord.

When you all buy into Obama's rhetoric that his election was when the earth was healed, the waters receded, and the economy was restored, well.... sounds like he is a false messiah, lord, and savior to progressives. How about you own that, my friend!

War of Aggression means invading a country that didn't attack first, especially under falsehoods.

Many, but NOT a majority of, Dems helped Bush with his war. Don't distract from the truth.

When Chris Matthews and all of the progressives "get a thrill up their leg" in the presence of their messiah, it seems appropriate to use the misbegotten term as it relates for them to their lord..

When did Matthews call Obama a messiah?

Now, there you go again! At least you'll own it, unlike Chuckie.

It's interesting how selectively catchy Matthews words are. Not a hint of any memory of "We're all neocons now!"

Why is that? You forgot THAT tingle.

When you all buy into Obama's rhetoric that his election was when the earth was healed, the waters receded, and the economy was restored, well.... sounds like he is a false messiah, lord, and savior to progressives. How about you own that, my friend!

Can't own what I never possessed. I've never deviated from saying Obama is a corporatist.

This difference between us is you believe in a Republican to do for you what some liberals hoped for in Obama.

This "savior and messiah complex" is pure derision, divisiveness and hate, my friend.

I don't hate Obama, but I do absolutely despise his arrogance and foolishness in what he has done to our country. He has so gravely weakened it that it may be beyond the tipping point now.

The fact of the matter though is that Obama is nothing more than a symptom of the problem. The problem is the entitlement-minded, socialist-driven, ignorant electorate. Obama is a result of that ignorance. They "want" the government to take care of things for them, so they elect a community organizer who had a resume that wouldn't get him hired to manage Wal-Mart. They then look away as he continuously breaks the law of the land, engages with our enemies, and ignores our allies. Obama, and certainly Michelle, think America is a racist country that incongruously elected him president. He thinks America has an evil history and needs to be brought down from the world stage as the only super-power.

He doesn't realize that far more evil nations like China, Russia, etc. are all too willing to step up into that power vacuum. Just like when Obama "ended the Iraq war" by precipitously and prematurely removing American troops from Iraq, ISIS and Iran filled that vacuum with their evil designs. Instead of realizing the existential threat he has helped foster, he decides to burnish his "legacy" by negotiating an untenable and unsustainable deal with an enemy that has sworn to destroy us and Israel. I fail to understand why we don't take our enemies at their word when they claim they will destroy us. Obama is a damned fool, but not as much of a damned fool as those that ignorantly and joyfully elected him.

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts… When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

It certainly appears to suggest a conservative victory over democracy.

Your highly partisan ranting always ignores this. Perhaps you can't see it for the "takers" distraction and divisiveness.

Your lack of supporting evidence opens your views to dismissal as mere dogma of the far (Left).(George W. Bush's) resume includes "elected President of the United States"...twice....

I'm so glad I don't have all your fear and resentment seething inside. That could drive one to unsupportable positions."

Bush had bi-partisan support AND authorization (including an international coalition) for his war in Iraq, including that of the leading Democrat contender, and yet you still suffer from Bush derangement syndrome. Who is the one with fear and resentment, Dave?

Obama, like Trump, is primarily interested in what is best for himself. That said, he does so with socialist and anti-colonial tendencies. He wanted the trade deal with congress's foolish support because it granted more power to HIM.

As for your Princeton study, there may be some truth to it, and hence the reason why we need to reverse the Citizens United decision. That said, if a strong majority of Americans band together, they can sway the direction of this nation for good or ill. If you and this Princeton study were 100% accurate, don't you think the power brokers would have rather have pulled the strings for Romney the corporatist, rather than for the unaccomplished privileged community organizer?

The domination of corporations is NOT conservatism. The rule of constitutional law in a truly representative republic is. You need to put down your DNC talking points you got from the harpy Debbie Wasserman Schultz and look at the facts, my friend.

Finally, if this country were still about personal responsibility and rugged individualism, (true conservatism) we wouldn't be playing class warfare and identity politics under the guise of getting the nanny state to take care of all of us. You call it a "taker distraction". Take off your communist-red-colored glasses and you will see it is the truth, buddy.

Yes, thank you for helping to set me straight. I sound just like a DNC rep. Yup. Sadly you employed more dehumanizing name calling again to make the point. Or Debbie must truly be a monster. I wonder what she's done worse than molesting minors like Ted Nugent did? He probably agrees she a harpy, or worse, too.

Values, I guess.

Listen I understand your anger. If everything is exactly as you present it, I'd be angry too. Hell, I'm angry enough with crap as it is, let alone political propaganda BS.

Just a couple points and you may have at me.

Romney the corporatist, rather than for the unaccomplished privileged community organizer... and corporatist president. Get real. Obama will be long gone when the corrupt gains of corporate power are realized through TPP and other corporate written laws.

Don't you understand Wall Street buys both parties? If it takes communist-red-colored glasses to see this, then welcome to reality, comrade. I have to wonder what colored blinders obstruct this view of reality.

The domination of corporations is NOT conservatism.

Thank you. It is corporatism. And it has hijacked enough politicians from both major parties to have a corporatist private agenda promoted over the public agenda. All it has to do to get its way is sprinkle their magic "free speech" and yell "Communism!" at opponents.

We'd all have better roads and bridges, and oh yeah, representation, if this were not true.

Liberals understand democracy is a lower priority for conservatives. The rule of constitutional law in a truly democratic representative republic is what liberalism is. The antiquated "Government of, by and for the people" notion.

So, there you go. One more look through my communist-red-colored glasses.

Sorry, one thing I can't see through those glasses is a savior in a suit telling me to vote for him. Never did. Never will.

anti-colonialthe doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America" -- which is somewhat more specific than others might offer. Colonialism generally refers to the era in which European nations (and others, including the United States), occupied other countries as satellite states. Think: "The sun never sets on the British empire." Anti-colonialism, in the broadest sense, is opposition to that practice.

As it has been applied to Obama: Obama "adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder" IE colonialism.

Since I was once told on this blog to"get off my lazy ass and Google it" that's how I found this.

TP's Oustanding Quotes

"suffer from Bush derangement syndrome""The domination of corporations is NOT conservatism.""harpy Debbie Wasserman Schultz" Why that's almost as bad as what republicans are called on the blog!

"Finally, if this country were still about personal responsibility and rugged individualism, (true conservatism) we wouldn't be playing class warfare and identity politics under the guise of getting the nanny state to take care of all of us. You call it a "taker distraction". Take off your communist-red-colored glasses and you will see it is the truth, buddy."

Dave, I don’t know if Debbie is a monster or not, but she absolutely is an unapologetic partisan hack that will spin the most horrific Democrat scandal into being a partisan attack by the Republicans. As for Ted Nugent, I know little to nothing about him other than the fact that he is not an elected leader and does not run the DNC like Debbie does. If he is guilty of what you claim, he should be prosecuted accordingly.

And yes I understand that Wall Street buys both parties. Hillary is a good example of that too.

“Liberals understand democracy is a lower priority for conservatives.”

There you go again painting all of us evil conservatives with the same broad brush, and yet you immediately take offense when such a return volley is fired at you progressives.

“The rule of constitutional law in a truly democratic representative republic is what liberalism is. The antiquated "Government of, by and for the people" notion.”

Yes, this is indeed the definition of classical Jeffersonian liberalism. It also bears no resemblance to the modern day Democrat party whatsoever. They are more about expanding “the general welfare” to their voters so that they will continue to keep them in power. And the latest figurehead messiah to do this, does wear a suit, except during national emergencies. Usually then he is in casual wear on the golf course.

Chuck’s definition of anti-colonialism was spot on the target.

Mozart, while Obama has indeed issues myriads of executive orders, you missed the key component of what I said. I said he issued more executive orders than any president in history that are un-constitutional or extra-constitutional in nature." I know the constitution is an anachronistic document written by a bunch of rich, racist, white guys, but they were actually pretty smart and had a great way to preserve our freedoms in this country, if only we would abide by that constitution.

“Didn't the Revolution succeeded through cooperation and unity, along with shared and personal sacrifice?”

Yes, it absolutely did. But they expected every patriot to help and do his duty. It wasn’t just about the 1% paying for the revolutionary war. They all banded together, but each took personal responsibility for themselves. When today’s progressive has a problem, he is likely to ask what the government is going to do to solve it for him. The thought of taking care of things himself seldom comes to mind, evidently.

“Want to make Hillary testy? Ask her why she was fired as a lawyer during the Watergate Hearings. (Hint: She Lied).”

That is because Hillary is a congenital liar. Funny how Nixon destroyed his tapes and even the Republicans insisted he step down from office. Hillary deletes 30,000 sensitive State Department emails and plays the victim with the help of her party. The Democrats evidently put party far above the nation these days.

The reason for the silence from the DNC about Ms. Clinton is because to liberals the ends always justifies the means.

Winning elections at any cost by any means in order to get into power and then to remain in power regardless of the means used to get the power is all that counts to the DNC.

Then liberals claim the only reason democrats lose elections is because the GOP "cheats and uses gerrymandering". Which makes me wonder, when was the last time a black democrat lost an election to a white republican?

When today’s progressive has a problem, he is likely to ask what the government is going to do to solve it for him. The thought of taking care of things himself seldom comes to mind, evidently.

We get it. Demonize Democrats and liberals while whining about conservatives being painted by a broad brush. We know the rule. “It’s OK If You Are Republican”. May we extend this to the Constitution Party?

“Liberals understand democracy is a lower priority for conservatives.” Did you notice how I only added “democratic” to your definition, contrasting our perspectives? Why did you leave that part out? Why do Republicans make it harder for minorities to vote? They invent a false epidemic of voter impersonation fraud for what reason? Why do they suppress voter registration and shut down early voting?

The guiding philosophy behind GOP voter suppression is clear.

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." - Paul Weyrich founded ALEC and co-founded the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, Council for National Policy, and Free Congress Foundation, among others.

Conservatives support this agenda, do they not? If you disagree, then I would say again you are more enlightened than the “corporate personhood with free speech wing” of the Right.

Which definition of anti-colonialism are you referring to? The real one, or the narrow one invented by a Right Wing author that isn’t supported by evidence?

Again my point is the Royalists were the conservatives of the time. They hated the true anti-colonialists, aka the founders.. But as a Right Winger you seem to need to embrace the narrow, unsubstantiated, made up definition Re-defining. It’s what the Right does so well. “Death panels”. “Death tax”. Ad nauseam.

It seems any unfounded definition is accepted as universal truth, as long as it smears a Democrat of liberal.

You may remember Nugent as an outspoken conservative voice of the NRA. His words and character are unassailable. Sorta like a savior.;-) Now that the statute of limitations applies.

What was it Bush did during the first seven minutes after being told about the 9-11 attacks? He sat and stared. Then later he ordered Richard Clarke to link the attack to Saddam.

But Obama is so much worse. He’s so “anti-colonialist”. And besides, Obama uses a teleprompter! The horror! Or is that more Republican hypocrisy? “Now watch this drive”, as Bush said after being annoyed by a question about responding to terrorism.

“Democrat Party”? Are they the ones opposed to the “Corporate Republic Party”?

They are more about expanding “the general welfare” to their voters

Um, “general welfare”, by definition, applies equally to low income Republican voters. But don’t let me get in the way of your sweeping generalizations. Maybe you don’t remember the Tea Party signs, “Keep government hands off my Medicare”? Yes, those voters and their general welfare. Hypocrisy, or idiocy?

And yes I understand that Wall Street buys both parties.

Yet you accuse only one party of the crime of providing for general welfare, but seem to admit they both serve Wall Street over Main Street.

Democrats and Republicans are not so much the “liberals” nor the “conservatives”. They are politicians in a neo-liberal militarist corporate empire. Despite all the “Democrats are commies!” and “Republicans are fascists!” rhetoric, they both ultimately serve the same masters to varying degrees.

If you have a problem understanding this statement, let me know. I can actually provide documented evidence.

We can ignore NAFTA, TPP and other trade agreements, but they won’t ignore us. They are, or will be, corporate written laws of the land.

Democracy takes a back seat to neo-liberalism once again.

So if conservatives and liberals both value democracy, why isn’t it working that way?

Nice to see "Chuck Morre" here; of course it's the boy troll stealing Chuck Moore's name (who used to make some smart comments here)

Boytroll AGAIN says that Hillary was fired during the Watergate hearings. But he knows that's untrue.

On the April 2, 2008 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Jerome "Jerry" Zeifman, House Judiciary Committee counsel during Watergate, was "the guy who fired" Sen. Hillary Clinton when she worked on the committee. Limbaugh made these claims while apparently reading from a March 31 article by conservative writer Dan Calabrese, which asserts: "When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation." Calabrese cites Zeifman as his source. But Zeifman's reported claim is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgement that he -- Zeifman -- did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so. Limbaugh also touted other unsubstantiated claims by Zeifman about Clinton's work on the Watergate committee.

Contrary to what Calabrese now writes, Zeifman was quoted in a November 4, 1998, Scripps Howard News Service article, published in The Sacramento Bee, as saying, "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her."

“We get it. Demonize Democrats and liberals while whining about conservatives being painted by a broad brush.”

Hey, you seemed to have set the precedent, so I was simply playing by the same rules, my friend.And spare me the “racism” crap about voting. Requiring positive identification to vote is NOT a hardship. With generations of Democrat voting malfeasance of “vote early, vote often” rhetoric, I think it is prudent to require that poll sitters ensure that whomever is voting is actually a citizen; don’t you? Despite the Burr Deming and leftist rhetoric to the contrary, voting fraud is sadly not rare. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

As far as not wanting everyone to vote, I will second that and thereby horrify you. I don’t want voters that are uneducated about whom and for what they are voting to cast votes. If they are picking a candidate simply because of name recognition and have no idea what that person stands for, or votes on an issue based on some innocuous sounding title, then I would prefer they stay home and watch Jerry Springer, regardless of which political party they typically support. That doesn’t mean I would advocate to have their right to vote removed, but I would simply rather those that are ignorant not exercise that right.

If and when there are legitimate cases of voter suppression, then those responsible should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.

As for anti-colonialism, I will stand by Chuck’s excellent definition as it regards our current president.

And yes, I understand that the Royalists at the time of our founding were the “conservatives”; just as those that supported classic liberalism in those days bear no resemblance to the nanny-state liberals of today. As for your other terms, what do you call it when your estate has to pay taxes when you die and leave your assets to your children? A death tax sounds to me like what it really is, considering that is money that has already been previously taxed.

Bush also played golf early in his term until the war began, then he cut down remarkably because of the unseemliness of it while we were at war. I don’t begrudge Obama playing golf or relaxing, but it would be nice if he would have the decency to cancel his tee times when there are vital national interests he needs to be attending to at those same times.

There is nothing wrong with providing for the general welfare, assuming that doing so does not mean exceeding constitutional authority to do so. Sadly exceeding that stipulation is the case under both Republicans and Democrats these days.

Further, I do agree with you that “Democrats and Republicans are not so much the ‘liberals’ nor the ‘conservatives’.” Indeed, there are WAY too many Republicans that are progressives. I am sure that there must be some Democrats that are still conservative; however, any examples of those people currently escape me. Basically the days of the Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson, and Zell Miller are gone. These days we have a candidate running for the Democratic nomination that actually and honestly self-identifies as a socialist. That said, they often do serve the same master: themselves and their quest to gain and maintain power.

“So if conservatives and liberals both value democracy, why isn’t it working that way?”

Because most Americans are apathetic and don’t pay attention to their “leaders” or the issues. They do not hold them accountable, nor do they actually research to see what the “Affordable Health Care Act” actually entails. Further, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. Further yet, I don’t want to live in a pure democracy. Such a government would be subject to the whims of what today is an uneducated and apathetic populace. That is why we elect leaders that supposedly reflect our values under the constitution. They are less prone to the fads and fleeting desires of the populace as a whole. The founders were also brilliant in this regard.

“According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday, 54 percent of respondents said they supported federal funding of Planned Parenthood, with 26 percent opposing. Wonder how conservatives fell about this democracy thing, when they are outnumbered.”

Once upon a time, a majority of Americans in the South also favored legalized slavery. That was evil and wrong then, just as abortion and selling of baby parts is wrong today. Our founding document as a nation speaks of our God-given unalienable rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Further, the idea of federal tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood has no basis constitutionally. They are not authorized to do it. Just because a majority of people want to do something, does not necessarily mean it is constitutionally legal to do so, including when it comes to depriving an unborn child of due process when it comes to his or her termination. Do you really want democracy or mob rule, Dave? I don’t when it usurps the rights and liberties of others.

TP<Requiring positive identification to vote is NOT a hardship….Unless you have no car or relative to transport you. I guess you know all about everyone’s circumstance and options?

Thank you for your link. Many sources are conjecture and biased. Although it tells us next to nothing of voter impersonation fraud, which is the only one relevant to ID’s at polls.

You seemed to have responded reflexively and missed my main points, while supporting my claim: “Liberals understand democracy is a lower priority for conservatives.”

Why do Republicans make it harder for minorities to vote? They invent a false epidemic of voter impersonation fraud for what reason? Why do they suppress voter registration and shut down early voting?

The guiding philosophy behind GOP voter suppression is clear.

And you support it. Thanks for sticking to your beliefs and allowing my points to stand. You could have just said, “You’re right” in the first place.

I looked into one of your sources on dead voters in Poughkeepsie. Did you get this far?

The numbers do not indicate how much fraud is the result of dead voters in New York, only the potential for it. Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not result in the casting of extra ballots. The Journal did not find any fraud in the local matches it investigated.

Has anyone determined impersonation fraud is more frequent than errors? No.

Thanks for the documentation. I suggest you read some more of it. Seems the “Great Voter Impersonation Fraud” isn’t so great after all. So let’s impose more restrictions on registrations, tell the League of Women Voters they can’t register people, cut our early voting and the number of booths/voting machines for “certain precincts”. Let them stand in longer lines. It’s builds character…or something.

How about Jeb’s purging eligible voters for his brother’s 2000 “selection”? I guess election rigging isn’t as bad as having ignorant minorities with access to the polls.

Further, the idea of federal tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood has no basis constitutionally.

Yes it does. See general welfare. Opinions may differ. Your opinion contradicts settled law. I see how this makes you angry. I disagree with some settled law too.

selling of baby parts is wrong today. Yes and it is illegal. The propagandists did their best to encourage PP to charge more for tissue. They were told it is illegal to sell for profit. It is donated at cost of processing and shipping.

"We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons. To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?" - Dr. Ben Carson

Do you really want democracy or mob rule, Dave?

I see you embrace yet another fabricated narrow definition to support ideology. Democracy is people voting in regulated elections and allowed to speak to and petition government. It is ballot proposals. It is supposed to be about allowing representation for the majority as it protects minorities.

Mob rule requires a mob. Get it? You are still a free man, right? If not, you are imprisoned by your beliefs, not by “mob rule”.

And still democratic representation takes a back seat to neo-liberalism, no matter how few of the "educated" people vote.

In 2013, conservative reality TV star Josh Duggar—of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting fame—was named the executive director of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group in D.C. which seeks “to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society.” During that time, he also maintained a paid account on Ashley Madison, a web site created for the express purpose of cheating on your spouse.

Thousands of clients using the affair-oriented Ashley Madison website listed email addresses registered to the White House, top federal agencies and military branches, a data dump by hackers revealed.

The detailed data, released Tuesday, will likely put Washington, D.C., on edge. The nation’s capital reportedly has the highest rate of membership for the site of any city.

Indeed, more than 15,000 of the email addresses used to register accounts were hosted on government and military servers.

Buried in the list are emails that could be tied to multiple administration agencies, including the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as several tied to both the House and Senate.

Davy, are you now the spokesperson for Jesus? Since you know so much about him and want to do what he said, how do you feel about his claim to be the only Son of God? Or to be God? Or that no one comes to the Father expect through him? Do you accept that?

Obviously Chuckie doesn't want to consider what Jesus said of the rich; as if He were some commie liberal who "hated and envied" the rich, or something.

Before I answer any more questions, I want to learn the evidence that indicates Obama as "anti-colonial". We've seen the word unilaterally, and narrowly, defined to conform to a Right Winger's beliefs, but evidence supporting that accusation and definition, has never been presented.

Like the "Chamberlain/Hitler" nonsense, all that needs to be done is to proclaim it as true. Then is MUST be true. A Right Winger has pronounced it, therefor it is true.

Why is this? Does the far Right think it is enough to make up definitions and accusations while refusing to support them with documented evidence?

We have determined belief trumps fact for them, so this appears to be an accurate assessment.

“When we started” was 1933. Unemployment was 24.9%. Unemployment at the time of Morgenthau's statement was 17.2%.

In no world, except in the Radical Right Bubble Cult, is 17.2% “just as much” as 24.9%.

Certainly appears that way, doesn't it? Facts they don't like are ignored. They have such faith in words from each other and their authoritarian leaders. Like a cult.

So, I guess I answered my question. They don't need no stinkin' facts to support accusations. Just believe it, then it must be true.

So if you are here without our permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you're still here, and we find that you're still here after we we've given you the deadline to leave, then you become property of the State of Iowa. And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do. - Radical Right Wing hate radio host Jan Mickelson

And this sick asshole is allowed to interview presidential candidates.

No Davy, what is Obviously is you want to pick and choose what part of Christianity you hold Christians to do based on your political views while not believing who Jesus says He was, nor holding yourself to ALL of the standards Jesus set for Christians to follow.

Then we have more of your deflection away from something you started "Just what Jesus wants for them, right", yawn so boring, sold old, so predicable. Such school yard debate skills.

Jesus is God and is the second person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus also has been against the rich in the context of those that were greedy in their wealth. Those things do not always go together, although I will admit it is not uncommon either. I give Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards as examples of this type of greed.

Dave, Dinesh D’Souza has a good explanation on why Obama is an anti-colonialist.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705485.html

Next, it really doesn’t matter what position and what documentation we provide you, you will still find a way to dismiss it if it disagrees with your firmly held beliefs, Dave. You can throw out epithets about us being members of a right wing bubble cult for disagreeing with you, but then take offense when we point out the similarities between Obama’s appeasement of our enemies and Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. It doesn’t seem to matter that this analogy has more than just a few passing parallels.

As for The Great Depression that FDR extended, I already admitted that 17.2% is less than 24.9% unemployment and asked you, so what? Why didn’t FDR just pay 100% of Americans to do jobs for the government and be done with it? As much of the tax payers dollars as he spent, I would damned well hope that we would have seen some reduction in unemployment. The fact of the matter is that FDR’s spending on job programs was not sustainable. In a twisted way, it was probably good that WWII did come along because otherwise we would have continued with government spending and double digit unemployment indefinitely under FDR.

As for whomever this Jan Mickelson is, I hope he was using hyperbole to make a point. Otherwise, this is indeed sick and I firmly disavow wanting anything to do with that position.

Great. No greedy Republicans or libertarians out there come to mind. They pass the purity test, apparently. And we are to assume all those wealthy Democrats also "hate and envy" the rich?

Funny how greed isn't a factor in Republicans cutting all estate taxes up to FIVE MILLION dollars. No greed there. Look at those greedy Democrats instead, right?

What an unbalanced perspective.

it really doesn’t matter what position and what documentation we provide you, you will still find a way to dismiss it if it disagrees with your firmly held beliefs, Dave.

Do you realize you are projecting Chuckie's reaction to facts unto me? Your "documentation" is purely unsupported opinion. Why on Earth wouldn't I dismiss opinion presented as fact?

Gimme some truth. Facts will sway me more than "hate the rich" bullshit. How stupid do you think I am? I'm a bit insulted you still fling that crap at everyone from the President down to me.

OK.

I knew I'd end up doing this myself.

Here it is, the "good explanation" from Dinesh D’Souza.

Yet when the senior Obama's article is placed side by side with the junior Obama's policies, it seems evident that the father's hatred of those on top, and his determination to confiscate their wealth, is largely replicated in the son.

Same old "hate the rich" bullshit. Obama IS rich in case nobody noticed. He says "Folks like ME can and should pay more".

Once again my appeal for supporting evidence is dismissed.

As I noted, it doesn't take anything but the word of a conservative to be the universal truth to the far Right. How is that unlike a cult?

If you're telling me this is documentation you're incorrect. It is opinion. And as I keep saying, and you keep proving, opinion always outweighs facts with the far Right.

Now this:

Please show me where anyone has pointed out the "similarities between Obama’s appeasement of our enemies and Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler".

Facts, please.

And speaking of opinion as fact.

Are you saying with a straight fact that granting land from a sovereign nation to a dictator is similar to a deal that removes from Iran the great majority of centrifuges and enriched uranium, requires them to maintain a uranium stockpile under 300 kilograms, well below its current 10,000-kilogram stockpile? Are you telling me there are similarities between inspections for compliance and giving in to Hitler's demands?

What exactly ARE you telling me?

I would tell you about Netanyahu’s ex-Mossad Chief supports the deal. I could show you the scientists and retired high ranking military figures who support the deal, but you would dismiss them as "foolish" and "anti-colonial" or whatever you're calling Obama lately.

Experts, Scmexperts.

You have a lot of explaining to do, in order to fulfill your demonization there, buddy.

At least you admit 17.2% is less than 24.9% unemployment. Notice that Chuckie can't get there for some reason. He hates it when I'm right, so he retreats into denial and belief.

"Do you realize you are projecting Chuckie's reaction to facts unto me?"

Do you realize Davy, that we might be right about how you "find a way to dismiss it if it disagrees with your firmly held beliefs"?

And there's Chuckie's distraction from the documented proof that his beliefs trumped the fact 17.2% unemployment is less than 24.9%. Chuckie held with "Just as much", Morgenthau's incorrect assessment, and kept the belief. And he's thrown a whiny, demanding, distracting temper tantrum ever since.

My little passing remark about Jesus and the rich sent him into an authoritarian fit of inquisition. ... nor holding yourself to ALL of the standards Jesus set for Christians to follow.

Only Chuckie may cast stones, for he alone is without sin!

What else can he do? When facts and logic take a back seat to Republican dogma and beliefs, he must distract.

"My little passing remark about Jesus" that you have made at least a dozen times before, usually followed by the claim wealth being worshiped or the manna of the conservatives. Don't like being called out on it do you.

"Do you believe what Jesus said about himself". Simple enough question, subject was introduced by you as a "passing remark". A"authoritarian fit of inquisition", please! I should let it go, like you let go of a remark I've made? Really Davy, really?

I just read that July was the hottest month world wide since scientific record keeping started.

On one hand we have tens of thousands of people working in several of the earth sciences correlating and corroborating information all over the globe for decades and on the other hand we have a Senator throwing a snowball in Congress, who do you believe?

Billions of man hours and billions in scientific infrastructure all negated by a guy with a snowball, I find that hilarious!

Mr. Hansen, I think you gave our friend Dubya a badly needed diversion in the conversation.

I am amused why you refuse to answer Chuck's question, Dave, when he did address yours, particularly considering the fact that you were the one indeed bringing up the topic of Christ.

And for the record, I absolutely answered your questions. 24 is greater than 17. You ignored my comments about government paying for all of the jobs under FDR and that the unemployment rate damn well better have gone down after having spent all of that tax payer money. That said, the unemployment rate was still way too high, despite all of the government intervention, until WWII started. Something you never acknowledged, because it doesn't set with your left-wing bubble cult, my friend.

As for global warming, I am agnostic on the topic. Yes, there are lots of scientists that work very hard promulgating the theory in order to keep up their government grants flowing into their research and job. There is also plenty of fraud on their behalf from cherry-picking and out-right falsifying of data (see the East Anglia emails) to the fact that there is record ice at the south pole. There are also inconvenient facts such as former key members of the environmental movements, like the founder of Green Peace, that have said that the movement has been hijacked not by scientists, but by those with political agendas, and global warming is a HUGE part of that false agenda.

I understand that many other scientists that deny anthropogenic global warming are funded by the fossil fuel industry, and thus have a dog in the fight, just like those university researchers do. But then there are those scientists such as Dr. Singer who created the satellites that are used for determining "global warming" who claims that ALL of the models being used are quite inaccurate and use wildly fluctuating variables, usually to come up with worst case Al Gore type scenarios.

I am open to being convinced of anthropogenic global warming, but the burden of proof falls on those claiming it is true, particularly when they want to decimate our economy to combat the problem which will still only then "improve" things by a negligible margin, by their own admission. Frankly I am still concerned about that coming ice age that scientists were predicting due to man back in the 70's.

"My little passing remark about Jesus" that you have made at least a dozen times before, usually followed by the claim wealth being worshiped or the manna of the conservatives. Don't like being called out on it do you.

"Do you believe what Jesus said about himself". Simple enough question, subject was introduced by you as a "passing remark". A"authoritarian fit of inquisition", please! I should let it go, like you let go of a remark I've made? Really Davy, really?

TP.Your recognition of some facts that Chuckie refuses is refreshingly open minded by comparison.

With all due respect, you appear to be promoting the conspiracy of evil climate scientists. How about those thermometers? Are they liberally biased? How about the thawing tundra? How about vanishing glaciers? How about warming oceans? Your conspiracy is looking like the Great Denial Conspiracy. Something to add to the Mass Voter Impersonation Fraud Conspiracy.

As for Chuckie’s question. He has a long history of demanding answers to off-topic questions, just as long as his history of not answering other’s questions. As I try to point out, beliefs have no place in a debate or discussion that relies on facts and evidence.

This was the context Chuckie was distracting from:

The little spoiled brats can scoop up to 5 million bucks and not pay a cent in tax for THEIR GAIN. Just what Jesus wants for them, right? Now that’s some class warfare for you.

Contrary to his false accusation of running from it, I'm repeating and elaborating my comment.

The topic was the Estate tax.

I was illustrating the greed that is so happily facilitated by the Right’s redefining Estate tax as “Death tax”. The same Right that panders to fundamentalist Christians also serves the interests of the greedy servants of mammon down to the last dime. And yes, the corpo-Dems are also great partners of this agenda.

What I personally believe is irrelevant. But Chuckie is all too happy to tell us what I do, or don’t, believe, isn’t he?

Why should I appease that behavior? Do you think he’d believe me anyway? What is the point?

Apparently I need an unconstitutional “religious test” to converse on political issues. I won’t play his game. Let him think I’m a Satanist for all I care. He probably does think so anyway, no matter what I say.

His belief trumps fact. Belief denies all that is contrary to belief.

Frankly I am still concerned about that coming ice age that scientists were predicting due to man back in the 70's.

You mean all SEVEN of them? This Bubble Speak tells me your research is lacking.

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

Singer is paid to deny climate change by the Right Wing Heartland Institute, funded by numerous corporate “persons” and a billionaire or two. These are the same folks who deny health hazards from tobacco smoke.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Heartland's advocacy for the tobacco industry is one of the two things Heartland is most widely known for. Donors to the Heartland Institute disclosed included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, liquor companies/.

Meanwhile, National Geographic Society reports on permafrost.

The Arctic is experiencing the fastest rate of warming as its reflective covering of ice and snow shrinks.” This includes some places where permafrost is most abundant. The Arctic’s continued loss of sea ice, retreat of glaciers, and thawing of permafrost will likely have consequences for the planet and its inhabitants. Temperature measurements have shown that in some places permafrost has fallen out of sync with the normal seasonal climate, suggesting that increased thawing may be occurring.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Permafrost

Your beliefs just happen to reject the overwhelming consensus or at the minimum, equally embrace the “company line” from Heartland. Your choice. Your beliefs. Your children’s world though.

You know the funny part of all this? When the cataclysmic consequences finally ensue, the Right will swear it is all the liberals fault. It’s what they do.

You are wasting your time with Mr. Dubya. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky.

Just like the greatest trick the devil plays is pretending that he does not exist, far left wing nuts like Dave Dubya pretend Saul Alinsky and his tactics do not exist.

Dave Dubya is stuck in a prison of his own underachievement. He believes that he is an intellectual far out on the Bell Curve.

I have nothing against prison guards, but to be politically correct they are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

Mr. Paine, you are wasting your time with the deflector Dave Dubya. Debates with him is like trying to play chess with a pigeon; he knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its marxist flock to claim victory.

Dogma Davy?How about commenting on this, "Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove that are a citizen. Now add this, "many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they ARE citizens"Ben Stein.

While you are coming up with some way to dismiss this or while you are waiting your handlers to come with an answer that will blame Bush in some way, Do you believe what Jesus said about himself?

The debt run up by Bush was 11.2 trillion when he left with two years more of a projected deficit of 1.2-1.4 trillion. That doesn't include the 5.6 trillion projected surplus he was handed when the coup de tat happened in 2000. That's a 16.8 trillion dollar difference. Add on the 2.9 taken from the social security trust fund and we are closer to 29 trillion dollar swing. The interest to service this debt is between 700-800 billion a year. Do the rest of the math yourself and you will see why republicans/conservatives do nothing but rob from the poor and middle-class and give it to the rich even if they have to borrow it from someone else.